


















LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 

PRESENTED BY 

















# W 










"iU * 






f^.U-V 


*LJ « • • • • « 

V ■; 








r. iMr ;^ ' ^' • a 






/-■ 




> !f« 


.!?»' 




^«- 










S ' 


A 




*• 


i • 


r* >? 




m 


' 0 l ' ir:.i.\' ’ 




Ik* .r 




. V i’C' V 

:V " ■ 


'.*, -I 


i/*r 


CCa 

L •' i ^ . * '': to . . 




, WHt-'Tj'mV - .. . _ ., 

< ‘ /1'' ■’ ^ . ♦ 


yr :-. 


.'*. f fcV I*. 

• ■' "'-^ ^ ■■' 

,.■■/■ iv «:.-■ 

V • - 


__ .rk 




. A 






K 1 < 


'Ti^: 


' p * . *» ' . • , -"Hi w. 


’•}! 




M 


. m 


jfeA. - >;x.‘ 


_ t/ -'ir-..X:.V.i-i, 




- •. •>,* 7 A / --i i.»^ 


■■.*» 


s. *> 




1 




Vc 


• 5 :' 


•V V • 


.r- 


‘ r\. *•■ :* ,' '••. :■ 


M 




V ,r 2 


I ; 


♦ 

*♦(' 

. .in 

r" • 



1 

:i'C' 

.V- 'r,' 

►rA^ 


A . 


M. 




-• • .» 






I** V-fc 


«'% 






f 5 ^/ -. 


yl^’ 




\fjr -yVrf 

'H 

t 

1 • 


^ • •• 

r_ 

f A? • * \ 

E-' 


• 


' •>-*i- V 




• 


-'• .. W- ■ ^ 


*' 


55 




* 

h I ■*. 

.** I ■*> 


'3^ ■ ' ^- 




m 

t*. 


f _ • , 


1 1 • *. ' 


j- - 'i V *• . ■ 


V A'^r, 

1 ^ 

■'^ '.A3;^ 


.-;, ■ V 

t 1 l'* 




V*.. 


■*, *^.*'■;.-'*• ■ ’“''I 'r4 

i > 


■/. . 






\V 


.» • "-i, ^ 


% 


♦!^ 








i.-^i 


V .• \ 




■ j-- > 


.» , 


» 


.• I •;'« 


iv 


-I 


A 






:% *•! 


- »A.- %: 






* *i 


-•v 










S^.sr?;< 5 ?? 


wf • 1 ^ 




\ ^ 


• 




' < •; 


^' ‘ ‘ « n*-^' 


K* ’4 






v. • 


iFirt 


(*vV 


v;- 


[•» ♦ 


>J: 1 ' 

s.'-^T. 


l.r W 


•- 






’!■*>! 




■'4- 


.1 > 




EV^; 




/5 

“ 4 

cr^ 




ytt 






i'" 




S, 








iSfiM 




'.-s 


.V 






-i 




•«i»» 


■isy* 


thH'-:/ V 


:4;; 


V 

■^.r. x: 


>.»■ 


i)*w i' 


t W»' *-x 


ts? 











\ ' 4 ' 






f’f 

I 


■ r 


>r 


■*1 4 


(fv: 


* 


*«> 


,i' 


' ■ ■’■' . ..f * ■ j ^ 

•v ^ 

- fV.‘rt^' ‘^4 •' i" t-- . . .T*/‘- 

. . . . • • • . * . '< 




t 






' <r 


• A 


*id 


ii 




• ( 


>■ 

• • 


■^v f’ 






if 


'•* 








.^•l: 


'•I 


r’ ^ 




K -*^?' 








•* 

■ ■ r-';.. 

•■■' I'^C. V’ 

-'-.i • •• 

• ^ 




.<dl 








if 


• ^•l-^ '• 


V 


. r * . I 


\. 


(m 


e 


,« 


♦ * 1 


‘rJ^ 


>4 




ir- 


i^^TI 


Mr. 






X.- 


>:>, 


\V 


Jf t -yx. 1^1 


JT 


4 . 


♦•.4 .: _ 




t ' t 


tr / 


- 


.v/' 




Mr 








■. »■« 

» , • *. # :v 

; • ’ 

• ^ 


I 

.i ' 




’, j 


r •/’ 




.<» 






•,» 






_ # •>:. % ^ 


■k 




iV:^ 


;A'. 


K. ^>1 




i - 






» •W 


k ^ 


.•<• 






^ 3r-4< 


«. 








•, ■ 








< , *‘,'4 


*i • 




'* f 


-J* * 




4 ’•< 


y' 






^'. I' 














♦ *jt “FMi 




L^i; 


' .A«- 


C . 






,."1 










At’ 


i » 








a; 


a.: 


,t<J 


l^»j • 




n. 




/* ^ 


fe; 


r 4. 










k, 




w: 






*A-: 




'?; 


ry. 


I 


1 * 






. '■ '. 1 ,"nW' 

*• <»*j’ i L*» 


T. ir 


> 


m. 


■» 












■Vm -i';y-ij^yiM 




44.till 


. K. . 






BALLOT REFORM ESSENTIAL TO FREE 
AND EQUAL ELECTIONS. 


A PA PER 


READ BEFORE THE 


Pennsylvania (]ivil ^efVice {PefoPm j^s^ociation 


AND THE 


Philadelphia ^ocial ^eienee jis^ociation, 

March 1, 1889, 

By CHARLES CHAUNCEY BINNEY, 

Of the Philadelphia Bar. 


RH ILA.DEL1PHIA : 

Published by the 

PENNSYM.VANIA CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ASSOCIATION, 
218 South Fourth Strekt, 

and the 

PHILADELPHIA SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, 

72b Locust Street. 








BALLOT REFORM ESSENTIAL TO FREE 
AND EOUAL ELECTIONS. 


A PA PER 


READ BEFORE THE 


^enn^^Ivania [jivil ^eavice Defofni j^^^ociation 


AND THE 


Philadelphia facial ^cience J^ppooiation, 


March 1, 1889, 

By CHARLES CHAUNCEY BINNEY, 

Of the Philadelphia Bar. 

y 


PHILADELPHIA : 

Published by the 

PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ASSOCIATION, 
218 South Fourth Street, 

AND THE 

PHILADELPHIA SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, 

720 Locust Street. 







A PAPER 


ON THE BALLOT REFORM BILL NOW BEFORE 
THE LEGISLATURE OF PENNSYLVANIA. 


“To find the honest men/' says Mr. Bryce, “and having 
found them, to put them in office, and keep them there, is the 
great problem of American politics.”* My present object is to 
direct your attention to a reform, which, it is firmly believed, 
will materially aid in the satisfactory solution of that problem, a 
result to be obtained by the exercise of the right of free and 
equal elections, a right recognized by our State constitution, 
but not practically secured by our laws. 

Ballot reform has received no little attention in this coun¬ 
try of late, but as up to this time the essential features of the re¬ 
formed system have only been established by law in Massachu¬ 
setts and the city of Louisville, and in that city alone have been 
in actual operation, we are not yet too familiar with the subject, 
and can afford the time to examine it from its foundation. 

Let us stop and consider a moment what elections are— 
what really are the means by which, as Mr. Lowell puts it, “ in 
a society like ours, every man may transmute his private thought 
into history and destiny by dropping it ■ into the ballot box.” 
They are not, as many seem to think, mere contests of force or 
skill, deserving attention only if their closeness gives a chance 
for heavy betting, more interesting than a race or a ball-match 
perhaps, only because they take place on a larger field, and their 
results are due to more varied or more fluctuating causes. 
Still less are they, as they seem to others, battles in a sort of 
civil war, in which every weapon may properly be used to defeat 
the enemy, every ruse adopted to deceive or outwit him—bat¬ 
tles which differ from those of ordinary warfare most nota¬ 
bly, perhaps, in this, that the victors claim and seize as spoil 
that which belongs to friend and foe alike. 

*“The American Commonwealth,” Vol. II, p. 385. 

(3) 




4 


They are (or they ought to be) the recognized and legitimate 
means of ascertaining the will of the people, that will which lies 
at the foundation of our government. They are (or they ought 
to be) the visible mainspring which sets in motion, mediately or 
immediately, all the wheels of government—National, State, and 
local. They are absolutely indispensable to the continuance of 
constitutional government, as at present established in this coun¬ 
try. If they are not what they ought to be, if this constitutional 
mainspring be itself subordinate to another “ machine,” not 
contemplated by the constitution, we must look for results equal¬ 
ly little contemplated by it. Whatever affects elections touches 
our government, our property, our liberties, our very lives. 
Without free and equal elections our government, as at present 
constituted, cannot be free or equal. Bribery, intimidation, and 
fraud cannot give us good public officers, upright judges, honest 
and wise administration. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth 
good fruit. 

Our State constitution acknowledges this. It declares that 
“elections shall be free and equal,” and that “no power, civil or 
military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise 
of the right of suffrage.” This is no new law. As early as 1682 
it was established that elections should be free, and their equality 
also has been enjoined since 1790. It is right that it should 
be so. Opinions may differ as to equality among men, but never 
as to the right of all qualified voters to equal facilities for 
voting, or that of all candidates to equal facilities for receiving 
votes. 

Now the constitution does not mean only that the civil and 
military powers shall keep their hands off, and leave the citizens 
to hold and regulate their elections for themselves ; that the law 
shall neither impose restrictions upon the time, place, and man¬ 
ner of exercising the right of suffrage, nor protect the citizens 
in this right and guarantee to them a free and equal mode of ex¬ 
ercising it, for the constitution itself governs many of these 
points. As little does it mean that elections shall be free 
and equal for voters only, not for candidates ; that the law may 
authorize or permit the existence of any methods of voting which 
necessarily give the candidate of any party, however numerous 


5 


or powerful, any advantage over the candidate of any other par¬ 
ty or body of citizens whatever. A citizen’s right to be voted 
for by any voter who may wish to support him is correlative to 
that of the voter, nor can the one right be impaired without harm 
to the other. Taken in connection with the provisions in Article 
VIII., in regard to the qualifications of voters, the days for 
elections, etc., the words under consideration have always been 
held to mean that elections shall be so regulated by law, and the 
rights of voters and candidates so protected, that no impediment 
which it is within the province of the law to prevent shall be 
thrown in the way of any one of either class; that every quali¬ 
fied voter who comes to the proper polling place at the proper 
time shall have an equal right to cast a lawful ballot for the can¬ 
didates of his choice, without intimidation, inconvenience, or 
any legally avoidable hindrance whatever, and to have that bal¬ 
lot officially and fairly counted ; that bribery shall not be allowed; 
and especially that no power of the government shall ever 
interfere in elections, except to protect their freedom and equality. 

While this view is right as far as it goes, I would submit 
that it does not go far enough. It only takes into consideration 
the casting and counting of the votes, and though it is true 
that the will of the people, in a free and equal election, is ex¬ 
pressed by the votes that are cast, it is not the whole truth. 
Were this all, then, in view of the proverb, “ many men, many 
minds,” one might expect that under universal suffrage the per¬ 
sons voted for for any office would be legion, whereas in fact the 
contest is usually between two only, almost never between more 
than three. The natural tendencies of men to seek strength by 
union, and to follow, if only a leader comes forward, are as op¬ 
erative in regard to elections as to anything else, and must be 
taken into account. Combinations among the voters (in other 
words, nominations) are inevitable, and are as essential to a com¬ 
plete expression of the will of the people as are the votes them¬ 
selves. If the people have no voice in the nominations, then their 
votes may show their preferences as between the candidates, but 
are no proof that even the majority really desire, except as a choice 
of evils, to see in office the man for whom they have voted. The 
right to suggest to others for whom to vote is at least as important 


6 


as the right to vote oneself, and should be as scrupulously protect¬ 
ed by law. If the right to nominate be not free and equal, if any 
body of voters, whether organized as a party or not, be not en¬ 
titled to choose candidates who shall stand, as regards the 
method by which votes are cast, on an equal footing with all 
other candidates, then whatever safeguards be thrown about the 
ballot, the election will not be “free and equal,” according 
to the true spirit of the words as used in our State constitution. 

The great part which nominations play in elections, and 
the consequent right of voters to nominate, have unquestionably 
been too little regarded in this country, and to this cause, as 
•well as to defective methods of voting, we owe it that our 
elections do not put in office, as a general rule, men who 
even fairly represent the ability and integrity of our people, still 
less those who, from their superior attainments, deserve to be 
selected from the mass of the community. 

So little has this most important matter been thought of 
that we may even doubt whether the conventions that have 
framed and the voters who have adopted our successive consti¬ 
tutions ever considered the question of nominations at all, in 
connection with the guarantee of free and equal elections, but 
however this may be, one thing is certain, viz,, that they intended 
to secure as perfect a system for obtaining the expression of the 
people’s choice as the ingenuity of man could at any time sug¬ 
gest and the power of the government maintain. Anything 
else would be to admit that the constitution did not contemplate 
popular government at all, but a goverment in which the lawful 
utterance of the popular voice should be arbitrarily checked and 
impeded, that Lincoln’s ideal “government of the people, by the 
people, and for the people,” was something with which we had 
nothing to do. Such a self-stultification as this cannot be for a 
moment suggested of those who framed and adopted an inurn¬ 
ment which solemnly declares that “All power is inherent in the 
people, and all free governments are founded on their authority 
and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the 
advancement of these ends, they have, at all times, an inalienable 
and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their govern¬ 
ment, in such manner as they may think proper.” And if the 


7 


most perfect attainable expression of the popular will be indeed 
the end in view, then if any change in our existing laws, whether 
in regard to nominations or any other feature of elections, tends 
to secure this end, and does not contravene other parts of our 
constitution, it is not only in harmony with, but is demanded 
by that constitution. 

Admitting, then, that our present election laws are not as 
“ the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not,** it will 
be well to consider what they are, and wherein they are at fault. 
Over three hundred sections of various acts testify to the Leg¬ 
islature’s belief that elections cannot be left to manage them¬ 
selves, and that their regulation is one of the duties of govern¬ 
ment. The law provides for ballot-boxes, voting-places, and 
officers to receive and count the votes, the cost of this machinery 
to be paid by the counties ; also for the prevention and punish¬ 
ment of bribery, intimidation, fraudulent voting, and other 
offences; for contesting the vote as officially returned, and for 
many other matters. .These laws are certainly well-meant, and 
seem to be in the main well observed, except as to bribery, which 
can only be successfully dealt with by being made either impos¬ 
sible or unprofitable. But in the light of modern experience 
some of the most effectual safeguards of the ballot are conspic¬ 
uously absent from our laws. Nominations are practically over¬ 
looked (the two recent acts punishing bribery and official mis¬ 
feasance at primary elections and party conventions being all that 
even incidentally bear on this point); the ballots, which must 
always be used, are left wholly to be supplied by unregulated 
private action ; while secret voting, though evidently contem¬ 
plated, is far from being secured. If, then, our elections fail to 
indicate “ the unbiassed wish and mind of the voters,” we are 
forced to attribute it less to disregard of the laws we have, than 
to the absence of other and more effective laws. 

And is this the truth in regard to our elections ? Has the 
voter*s natural right to nominate become the exclusive property 
of a party caucus, controlled by a single knot of self-chosen dic¬ 
tators ; I think you will all agree that there is but one answer 
to that question. Again, do bribery, intimidation, and trading 
influence the choice of public servants, and through them the 


8 


policy of the government ? That such is the case, and that in 
proportion to the magnitude of the interests at stake, seems to 
be indisputable. The purchase of “ floaters,” both individually 
and “in blocks of five;” the dictation of employers to work¬ 
men, of public officers to their subordinates ; bargains between 
the leaders of opposite parties or factions for the distribution of 
combination ballots in the interest of certain candidates, to the 
loss of others of the same party—these and many like practices 
are but too well known. Even if Pennsylvania offends less in 
these respects than the “ doubtful States, ” as they are called, 
why wait to reform until some contingency makes our vote 
doubtful, why endure at all the loss of our constitutional rights.^ 

If we wish to regain these rights, our present election ma¬ 
chinery must be changed in some constitutional way. Some 
new machinery must be added, and the best machinery for this 
purpose is the Australian ballot system. The adoption of this 
system will work a radical cure of very many of the evils that 
mar our elections, and will pave the way for other reforms. It 
will do this, and I do not believe that anything else can. Until 
we adopt it we shall continue, in spite of all our efforts, to see 
our so-called popular elections go by default through indiffer¬ 
ence or carried by bribery and trickery, to see really represen¬ 
tative candidates succumb to machine nominees, and the will of 
the favourites of the majority of a party, no matter by what means 
that majority was obtained, tyrannically override the better 
judgement of the community at large. 

What, then, is this system for which so much is claimed.? 
Briefly stated, it comprehends three principal features, all of 
them new to our election laws. 

(i.) Nominations, which may be made either by a party 
Convention, or by a paper signed by a certain number of quali¬ 
fied voters, are received by a public officer a certain time before 
every election. 

(2.) Uniform ballots, with the names of all the candidates 
grouped under the titles of the respective offices, with blanks 
for the insertion of one other name for each office to be filled, 
are printed at public expense, and distributed, inside the voting 
room, to those who are entitled to vote. 


9 


(3.) A place is provided where, immediately after receiv¬ 
ing and before depositing his ballot, each voter shall privately 
mark the name of every candidate thereon for whom he wishes 
to vote, and fold his ballot so that its contents cannot be known 
until it is unfolded to be counted. 

There are various minor provisions which I shall refer to in 
due course, but bearing in mind what I have said about elec¬ 
tions, it is easily seen that the adoption of these cardinal fea¬ 
tures—legally recognized nominations, uniform ballots printed 
at the public expense and distributed only at the polls, and 
secret voting,—is so far reaching in its consequences as to con¬ 
stitute as important and fundamental a reform as any that has 
been attempted since the foundation of our government. 

The reformed system is, I have said, Australian. A brief 
review of its history may not be uninstructive. As the inter¬ 
course between Australia and our Atlantic States is rather 
limited, most people know of the system chiefly from its use in 
England, and the objection may possibly be raised that, being 
English, it is unrepublican, or as we say, un-American. Of 
course no intelligent mind needs to be disabused of such an 
idea as that, but it is interesting to note that the system, in point 
of fact, took its rise in a country governed by universal suffrage, 
in a new and rapidly developing country, where the social 
conditions are almost identical with our own. If it has spread 
to older and even monarchical countries, it is because, as their 
governments became more democratic, more American, the 
necessity for the most perfect attainable expression of the popu¬ 
lar will grew more apparent. It started almost simultaneously in 
the colonies of South Australia and Victoria. In both, but 
especially in the former, rioting, bribery, intimidation, and fraud 
had characterized the elections, even before universal suffrage 
or purely representative goverments had been established. The 
secret ballot was first proposed as a cure for these evils by Mr. 
Francis S. Dutton, in the Legislative Council of South Australia, 
in 1851. The reform did not come all at once, but in 1857, a 
year after popular representation and universal suffrage had been 
granted, Mr. Dutton, being again a member of the government, 
succeeded in conjunction with Attorney General Hanson, (after- 


IQ 


wards Chief Justice), in framing a bill which, after receiving 
some modifications and additions in the House, became a law. ^ 
In Victoria, Mr. William Nicholson led the movement in favour 
of the reform, and finally carried it through in 1856, when him¬ 
self head of the 'colonial government, after a representative legis¬ 
lature had been established for two years. At first applying to 
legislative elections only, its merits were so evident that it was 
gradually extended to all elections alike. Nor were its benefits 
long confined to these two colonies. It was adopted by 
Tasmania and New South Wales in 1858, by South Australia, 
West Australia, and Queensland not many years later, by New 
Zealand in 1870. After it had been in operation fifteen years, 

Mr. Dutton was able to testify before a Parliamentary com¬ 
mittee in England, “ I can safely say that no act of my political 
life has given me so much satisfaction as what I did fifteen or 
sixteen years ago with reference to the ballot system. If that is 
possible, I am more strongly in favour of it now, after fifteen 
years’ experience, than when I introduced it before I had any 
experience about it.” And he added that, as a result of the new 
system, the very notion of exercising coercion or improper influ¬ 
ence had “absolutely died out of the country.” Think of this a 
minute. The Australians are not, so far as we know, exception¬ 
ally fitted for the milleniiim. They seem to be men of like 
passions with ourselves. And yet, by the introduction of a partic¬ 
ular system of voting, the very notion of coercion or improper 
influence at elections is solemnly declared, by a man whose 
testimony can hardly be rejected, to have “absolutely died 
out ” among them. 

So much for the moral effects of the new law in Australia. 

As to the simplicity and smoothness of its working, perhaps the 
best evidence is that in nearly thirty years of its operation in 
Victoria, the Supreme Court was only called on sixteen times'*^ 
to construe any point of the acts (experimental as they were) 
which established this wholly new system, far newer be it 

*The same smoothness of working has attended the English ballot laws. The 
legal controversies to which they have given rise have been surprisingly few. See 
“ The Ballot in England: Its Legal Incidents” by H. M. Asquith, M. P., in the 
Political Science Quarterly, vol. III., p. 676, (Dec., 1S88.) 



observed, and requiring far more change of habits, for the 
Australians than it would for us. We are accustomed at least 
to the use of the ballot, and to some attempts, though of little 
effect, at secrecy. They had known only the old English system 
of viva voce polling, which exposed every man, even before he 
left the booth, to all the consequences of casting an unpopular 
or undesired vote. The greatness of the change only increases 
the glory of those who made it. The struggling colony, remote 
from the civilizing influences that characterize older countries, 
advanced at once beyond even those lands that boasted them¬ 
selves the foremost in political science and experience. 

Apparently the mother country was the first to follow the 
example of her colonies, but she did not do so until the change 
was solely needed. The earliest method of choosing members 
of Parliament in England was the ultra-primitive one of a show 
of hands. There seems to be no record of a poll being taken 
till the early part of Henry VTs reign. Human nature was 
about the same then as now, and the evil effects of the lack of 
secrecy were evident from the first. P'or instance, the preamble 
to a statute of 23 Hen. VI. recites that “ divers sheriffs of the 
counties of England, for their singular avail and lucre, have not 
made due elections,” which would seem to point to a practice of 
counting out;” and in 1451, in the same reign, certain free¬ 
men of Huntingdonshire, protesting against the election of two 
knights returned from the shire, complained of the threats of 
armed opponents at the polls, causing them to depart “for dread 
of the inconveniences that was likely to be done for man¬ 
slaughter.” Such a state of affairs is perhaps not to be 
wondered at, at a time when the Wars of the Roses were laying 
all England waste, but what is remarkable is that, in the face of 
these and various minor abuses, no substantial change in the 
English mode of voting took place for over four centuries. Such 
an example of conservatism is one that we should scarcely be 
safe in following. 

The show of hands was held sufficient in law till the six¬ 
teenth century, and the right to demand a poll was not finally 
established till 1696. (7 and 8 Will. HI., c. 125). In case of 
such a demand, which was a matter of course when there was 


12 


more than one candidate, the election was declared adjourned 
to a given date, when the poll was held. The method of polling 
was for each voter to enter the booth, and when his right to vote 
was established, to declare for whom he voted, and the clerk 
checked a vote for that candidate opposite the voter’s name in 
the poll-book. The only notable variation from this system was 
that latterly in some boroughs the voter wrote the candidate’s 
name on a voting-paper, signed it, and gave that to the poll-clerk. 
Elections frequently lasted eight or nine days. In fact once in 
this century the polls were open in county Mayo for fifty-seven 
days ; but later laws made a limit of two days in the country 
and one in the boroughs. 

For the scenes of violence and corruption that invariably 
attended these open elections I shall refer you to the pages of 
Dickens, Thackeray, Warren, and other portrayers of modern 
English life, reminding you only that their descriptions, vivid as 
they are, are but of what took place on the surface, the depths 
of corruption and political disorder being scarcely hinted at. 

The era of reform that began with William IV., and still 
shows no sign of coming to a close, was early marked by more 
enlightened views in regard to elections. Of course the exten¬ 
sion of the suffrage only intensified the evils of open voting, by 
giving them a larger field in which to operate, and petitions 
for the establishment of a ballot system became more and 
more frequent. Tenants complained of the interference of their 
landlords, small tradesmen of that of their customers, and their 
cause found able advocates. Some of the foremost thinkers, 
writers, and statesmen of the day—James Mill and the followers 
of Bentham, Grote, the historian of Greece, Peel, Lord John 
Russell, IMacaulay, Daniel O’Connell, and that true friend to 
America, John Bright—men who on other questions differed 
widely among themselves, were united in furthering this-reform. 
From O’Connell’s motion in connection with the East Retford 
bill in 1830, and Grote’s maiden speech in 1833, jLine, 1872, 
when the Lords finally passed the election bill through a second 
reading by a vote of 86 to 56, the attack was repeatedly renew¬ 
ed. A Ballot Society was formed, which was active in the dis¬ 
tribution of tracts and pamphlets, and its ultimate victory should 
be a stimulus to similar organizations among ourselv^es. 


13 


The persistent opposition to the reform, though offered 
chiefly by the Conservative party, cannot justly be charged to 
mere conservatism. Curiously enough, one of the best charac¬ 
teristics of Englishmen, the love of frankness and openness in 
speech and action proved generally hostile to all attempts to 
secure, by any such apparently questionable means as secret 
voting, what was really but the application to elections of the 
boasted English principle of fair play. “Secret voting has in 
England always had to encounter a special argument of pre¬ 
dominant influence. It is difficult to sum it up in a few words, 
but its burden is that the open vote tends to create and main¬ 
tain the self respect of the voter, and that the secret vote is the 
parent of hypocrisy.”* In clubs, indeed, the ballot had long 
been used, but the Earl of Shaftesbury was opposed even to this. 
In the debate on the ballot schedule of the elementary education 
act, in 1870, he said, “ I detest secret voting. I never blackballed a 
man but once, and then I told him of it immediately afterwards.” 
It must also be remembered that what was originally proposed 
was merely our American ballot system, and its value as a prac¬ 
tical improvement on viva voce polling was seriously, and not 
unjustly, doubted. When the reformers were able to point to 
the good results of an unquestionably secret ballot, they appealed 
no longer to theory, but to the practical common-sense of the 
English people, and their cause rapidly gained strength. In 
the election of 1868 the evils of the old methods were peculiarly 
noticeable, and the next year a committee was appointed to 
inquire into them, and to provide further guarantees for the 
“tranquillity, purity, and freedom” of parliamentary and muni¬ 
cipal elections, and three years later the elections act was 
passed. Though limited to expire December 31 st, 1880, it has been 
regularly continued in force from year to year, and its perpetuity 
is now as secure as that of the mutiny act itself. Subsequent 
investigations have only added testimony to its successful 
working, and its scope has been repeatedly extended, so that 

* “ The Australian Ballot System,” by John H. Wigmore, (Boston, 1889,) p. 13 
To this most interesting historical sketch of the system, followed by a full compila¬ 
tion and comparison of all the laws based thereon, I am indebted for much valuable 
material. 



H 


now, since its application to county elections in August last, it 
governs all elections in England and Wales, and practically in 
Scotland and Ireland also. 

“Considering the ferocity of its assailants, and the zeal they 
displayed in prophecy, it is very remarkable that the ballot has 
so generally and completely fitted itself into the British consti¬ 
tution. It has worked admirably. There is no wish for any 
change. The country squires do not suggest it. Large em¬ 
ployers of labour never dream of it. Irish priests barely think 
of it. Yet these classes can no longer poll their men as they 
used to do, leading them up in procession, standing alongside 
the booths, and hearing them vote. No ‘ states of the poll ’ can 
now be issued by political parties, at hourly intervals, to fan 
excitement and to indicate how contests are going. Except 
that conveyances (lent by friends of the candidates, as they 
cannot now be hired by the candidates themselves) are rapidly 
moving about, bringing up voters, there is scarcely any bustle. 
The ballot itself is rapidly and quietly taken ; and the voter is 
often surprised to note how quickly the votes are recorded and 
the voters pass away, while the exterior of a polling station is 

apparently so lifeless.The counting is officially made 

quite as soon as it used to be under the old plan.”* 

“ All those disorders,” said Sir Joseph Heron, town clerk 
of Manchester, before the Parliamentary Committee in 1876, 
“ that used to occur under open voting have ceased altogether. 
I believe that such a thing as bribery does not exist at Man¬ 
chester.” 

“ It is admitted,” says a recent writer,! “ that the English 
system is simple, protected from fraud, and absolutely success¬ 
ful. There is positively no record of attempts to defeat its 
secrecy or to organize fraud, and if they were made, they would 
be instantly discovered and punished. It was worth waiting a 
little longer to attain this degree of perfection, and to have a 
reform buttressed by public opinion.” 

Let me here observe that while a secret ballot prevents the 

* From “ The Ballot in England,” by Edwin Goadby, Political Science Quar¬ 
terly, vol. III., p. 654, 664. (Dec., 1888.) 

f Mr. Goadby, in the article already cited, p. 672. 



15 


grosser and more direct forms of bribery, the remarkable purity 
of recent English elections is also due to subsequent laws, 
which limit election expenses, require all payments to be made 
by the candidate or his agent, and compel a detailed statement 
of disbursements to be filed. These most practical laws, how¬ 
ever, were but the natural outgrowth of the reformed system of 
voting. Before it was adopted all attempts to stem the tide of 
bribery and fraud seemed so futile that such measures as these 
would never have been thought of, much less enacted. They 
do not detract from, but rather increase the value of Australia’s 
gift to England—greater than all the gold from every mine in 
the colony. 

Not to detain you further with these matters of history, I 
shall only state that all the essential features of the Australian 
system have since been adopted in Canada, Belgium, and Lux¬ 
embourg, and some of them in Austria, Hungary, Erance,* 
Italy, and Greece. In the Prussian Landtag the repeated 
demands for a secret-ballot have not yet been granted, from 
which we may infer a fear that it would not harmonize with 
the paternal policy of a Bismarck. 

We Americans are sometimes disposed to think our national 
character and institutions so unique that the political experiences 
of other nations can be no guide or criterion for us. It is with 
peculiar satisfaction, therefore, that reformers can now point to 
the Australian ballot system as having within the past year 
found a home on American soil at last, and as having already 
shown in its operation the same good results here as elsewhere. 
The sturdy old Commonwealth of Massachusetts, whose found¬ 
ers chose to brave all the toils and dangers of an infant settle¬ 
ment in a land of scant fertility, rather than comply with 
religious teachings and observances, which, rightly or wrongly, 
they did not approve, and whose sons at Lexington and Bunker 
Hill led the van in our struggle for civil independence also, has 
struck another blow for liberty by assuring to all her people the 
full and free expression of their voice at the polls. Even before 

* In France the need of further reform has already made itself felt, and this 
very week the Chamber of Deputies passed a bill to secure the secrecy and conse¬ 
quent purity of the ballot. 



i6 


the Australian movement, attempts to secure a secret ballot 
were made in Massachusetts, but were frustrated by party 
spirit. At length, after some years of consideration and dis¬ 
cussion by intelligent and patriotic men, four bills on the subject 
were introduced in the Legislature early last year, and were 
backed by numerous petitions. The committee to which they 
were referred reported a bill containing the best features of 
these four, and of the laws already in force in Australia and 
elsewhere. With but slight change, it passed by a practically 
unanimous vote, was approved on May 30th, and will take effect 
first at the election to decide the question of prohibition next 
month. 

Though to Massachusetts belongs the glory of the first 
State ballot reform law, Kentucky was even before her in grant¬ 
ing free municipal elections to one of her cities, and history will 
record the Louisville election of December 4th, 188S, as the 
first instance of the practical working of equal nominations, 
uniform and official ballots, and secret voting within the United 
States. How well the system worked I shall have occasion to 
tell when I proceed to examine it in detail. 

The other States follow close upon the lead of Massachu¬ 
setts and Kentucky. With the fate of the Yates-Saxton ballot- 
reform bill in New York, you must be all sufficiently familiar. 
The flimsy and insincere pretexts on which it was vetoed only 
served to make that action the more significant. When it is 
again presented to Governor Hill for his signature, even these 
objections can no longer be made. What new ones he will 
decide upon, time alone can show. 

In Michigan the two branches of the Legislature failed to 
agree upon the bill presented to them last year, and it was lost 
in consequence, but action will doubtless be renewed. 

Wisconsin adopted, in 1887, a system securing to each voter 
the right to select and arrange his ballots inside the voting 
room, without interference or solicitation. While this is effec¬ 
tual to prevent disorder, and intimii^ation by force, it is inferior 
as to secrecy to the “bull-fence” used in some parts of Indiana, 
a curved passage-way between high solid fences, leading to the 
polls on one side and away from them on the other. This gives 


17 


the voter a moment or two free from observation, so that he does 
not always vote the ticket that was put into his hand when he 
entered the passage. 

Such devices may be commended as steps in the right 
direction, but the people are not likely to be satisfied with them 
as substitutes for the complete Australian system. If employed 
by legislators as a cheap means of staving off reform by appear¬ 
ing to grant it, they are doomed to failure. The demand for 
reform grows louder day by day. The bribery and trading that 
marked last November’s election in all the doubtful States have 
unquestionably shocked the moral sense of the country, and 
ballot reform is everywhere looked to to prevent the repetition 
of this national disgrace and crime. California, Colorado, Con¬ 
necticut, Dakota, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana,* Iowa, Kansas, 
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, (where the bill has already passed the House,) Tennessee, 
and Virginia have joined the States already mentioned in either 
presenting ballot reform bills to their Legislatures, or preparing 
to do so. Such a current of public opinion cannot be with¬ 
stood. 

Our own State of Pennsylvania has not been backward in 
joining the ranks. After preparation by a committee of the 
Association to which many of you belong, and approval by the 
Citizens’ Municipal Association of this city, a bill modelled on 
the Massachusetts law was introduced in our House of Repre¬ 
sentatives by Hon. Jesse M. Baker of Delaware county, on Janu¬ 
ary 24th, and in the Senate by Hon. John J. MacFarlane of this 
city on January 30th; and to them the thanks of all good 
citizens are due. The adoption or rejection rests with the 
Legislature, but public opinion is so strong in favour of the bill 
that our people are not likely to forget that the Legislature sits 
at Harrisburg by their will and on their account, and its action 
in this matter is sure to be followed by the due reward of praise 
or blame. If the bill become a law, there could not be a better 
or more useful opportunity of putting it in force than at the 
election on the prohibition amendment next June. 

*Since this paper was read, a bill, said to contain the Australian system in all 
its completeness, has become a law in Indiana. 



8 


The main features of the system proposed by this bill, I 
have already enumerated :—official equality of party and inde¬ 
pendent nominations, ballots publicly printed and distributed, 
and secret voting. I shall now proceed to make a complete but 
brief review of the whole bill, and then point out its great superi¬ 
ority over our present system in securing those free and equal 
elections (equal and free for both candidates and voters) which 
our constitution requires. 

In the first place, nominations may be made in either 
of two ways, (i.) Any convention of a political party which, at 
the preceding election, polled at least three per cent, of the 
entire vote cast in the State or division thereof for which the 
election was held, may file with the Secretary of the Common¬ 
wealth certificates of nomination for all State officers, including 
members of Congress and of the Legislature and presidential 
electors, at least twenty-one days before the election, and for 
all other officers, a like certificate is to be filed with the county 
commissioners at least fourteen days before the election. Such 
certificates must be signed by the presiding officer and secretary 
of the convention. (2.) Any qualified voters of the State, to the 
number of at least one thousand, may nominate candidates for 
any office to be filled by the voters of the State at large, by 
signing their names and addresses to papers to that effect, and 
filing them as certificates of party nominations are filed. Simi¬ 
larly two hundred voters of a city, county, or district may nomi¬ 
nate for city or county officers. Congress, or either branch of the 
Legislature, and twenty-five voters* of a district for all minor 
offices. No person can sign more than one nomination paper 
for each office, and the signatures to each paper must be vouched 
for by affidavit of at least two persons. 

Certificates of nomination and nomination papers must 

*The object of these minima of signatures is “ to prevent the ballot frcrth being 
encumbered with the names of unbalanced persons and men of straw.” Public 
opinion and the interest of the aspirants are also effective restraints. “ As English 
and Australian experience shows, the former will throw ridicule on a candidacy 
which has no support; and the latter will, as now, have a powerful influence 
wherever there is not some strong ground for the candidacy.” Wigmore, p 53. 
The minima chosen are believed to give the restraint above mentioned, without 
pledging any large number of voters before hand. 



9 


specify the names and residences of the candidates, the offices 
for which they are nominated, and the party or political prin¬ 
ciple they represent, expressed in not more than three words. 
In the case of presidential electors the names of the candidates 
for President and Vice-President may be added to the party or 
other name. 

Nomination certificates and papers shall be open to public 
inspection. Objections thereto must be made in writing and 
filed in the office where the paper objected to is filed. Formal 
objections only will be considered in such office, and the parties 
filing the paper must be at once notified of all objections filed or 
defects found, and all defects must be rectified within the time 
fixed for filing the certificates or papers. All material objections 
must be settled in the courts. 

A candidate may withdraw by filing a request to that effect, 
signed and acknowledged, in the office where the nomination 
certificate or paper is, at least fifteen days before election for 
State offices; and ten days for county offices. In case of the 
death or withdrawal of any candidate, his supporters may nomi¬ 
nate another in his place. 

Next, as to the means of voting. The printing of all ballots 
shall be a county charge as other election expenses are. Every 
ballot used at the same election shall be alike, printed on white 
paper, at least four inches long and five inches wide, and shall 
contain the names, residences, and party or political designation 
of all candidates, arranged alphabetically by surnames* under 
the designations of the respective offices, but the names of presi¬ 
dential electors shall be arranged in groups with the party desig¬ 
nation. At the end of each list of candidates for an office shall 
be as many blank spaces as there are persons to be voted for, so 
that the names of persons not actually nominated can be 

*The question whether the alphabetical arrangement should be by the surnames 
of the candidates or the titles of the parties is a much disputed one. The former 
effects the greatest possible equality among candidates, and favours independent vot¬ 
ing, as the task of selecting is exactly the same whether one votes for candidates all 
of one party, or not. The latter way gives, possibly, an unfair advantage to such 
party names (“ American,” “ Democrat,” etc.,) as would always bring their candi¬ 
dates to or near the head of each list. In some countries the candidate’s party is 
shown by the colour of ink used, but this adds to the expense. 



20 


inserted.* Questions to be voted upon shall be printed after the 
lists of candidates. If a candidate die or withdraw after the 
ballots are printed, “ stickers ”t with the substituted name shall 
be supplied to each voter. At the right of each candidate’s name 
shall be space enough for a voter to mark a cross, and the words 
“ vote for one,” “ vote for two,” “yes,” “ no,” and the like shall 
be printed on the ballots when necessary. Ballots shall have an 
official endorsement, with place and date of election printed on 
the back, and shall be bound in books, with stubs. 

The county commissioners shall provide two sets of ballots 
for each voting place, each set containing one hundred ballots 
for every fifty or fraction of fifty voters on the assessor’s list. 
They shall also provide specimen ballots printed on tinted paper, 
and cards containing full instructions as to the manner of voting 
and the penal clauses of the act. They shall also publish the 
names of the candidates by posting and advertising. The two 
sets of ballots, together with specimen ballots and cards of in¬ 
struction, shall be sent to the judges of election, in separate pack¬ 
ages, at least forty-eight and twenty-four hours respectively before 
the election. In case neither set is duly received, or both have 
been destroyed or stolen after being received, the j udges of election 
shall proceed to prepare other ballots substantially in the form 
of the missing ones, and to enable them to do this the county 
commissioners shall send them complete specimens of the ballots 
and other necessary papers by registered letter at least four 
days before the election. 

Voting places shall be provided with not less than three 
voting shelves or compartments,:]: one for every fifty voters on 

*This is absolutely essential, as otherwise the voter’s right to vote for any one, 
whether nominated or not, would be unconstitutionally restricted. Many of the 
sample ballots that have appeared in the newspapers lately are fatally defective in 
this respect. 

f The words of the proposed law are : “ suitable slips of paper bearing'the said 
name, together with the title of the office, and having adhesive paste upon the 
reverse side, which shall be offered to each voter with the regular ballot, and may 
be affixed thereto.” This exactly describes what is known in Philadelphia by the 
rather inelegant term, “ sticker.” 

J“A very simple and inexpensive structure will suffice to furnish entire 
secrecy in marking the ballot.” A row of open stalls, or compartments, (like those 
in safe-deposit buildings, except that the voter would stand, not sit,) is the best 
arrangement. “ While the act of marking should.be screened from all observation, 
yet the person of the voter should remain in plain sight. This is necessary in 
order to prevent attempts at fraud—substitution of non-official ballot, exhibiting the 
ballot, etc.” Wigmore, p. 59. 



.21 


the list, where voters may conveniently mark their ballots, 
screened from observation, and a guard-rail shall be constructed 
at least six feet from the ballot-boxes and compartments. Only 
the election officers, supervisors authorized by the laws of the 
United States, watchers appointed by the courts, and voters to 
the number of not more than four in excess of the number of 
compartments shall be within the rail at once during the voting. 
Watchers to the number of one for each party or group of 
citizens that have made nominations, and also voters who are 
waiting for their turn, to the number of ten, may remain in the 
room outside the enclosed space.* 

Thirdly, as to the voting. At the opening of the polls the 
seals of one package of ballots, cards of instruction, etc., shall be 
publicly broken, and the package opened by the judge of elec¬ 
tions, the other package being kept till needed. Cards of instruc¬ 
tion shall be at once posted in each compartment, and not less 
than three cards, and not less than five specimen ballots, posted 
in or about the room outside the guard-rail. Each voter s name 
shall be distinctly announced by an election officer, and if it be 
on the check-list, by the officer in charge of it, and the voter 
shall be allowed to pass the guard-rail. If he be challenged, or 
his name be not on the list, he must prove his right to vote, as 
now required by law, before he can pass the guard-rail. The 
voter s right being admitted, the officer in charge of the ballots 
shall write the name on the stub of a ballot, detach the ballot 
from the book, fold it so that only the official caption can be 
seen, and give it to the voter. 

Having received his ballot, the voter must at once go alone 
to a compartment, and there put a cross mark against the name 
of each candidate he wishes to vote for, and against the proper 
answer to any question submitted, fold his ballot as it was when 
he took it, and so as not to show the marks, deposit it in the box 
with the official endorsement uppermost, and quit the enclosed 

*This is a great improvement on our present system, by which the public have 
usually no means of seeing what is going on inside the room, except while the hole 
through which the votes are handed in is open, and the election officers have every 
facility for tampering with ballots and stuffing boxes. It is of immense importance 
that all their actions, while the polls are open, should be done under the eyes of the 
citizens. 



22 . 


space without delay. No voter can enter a compartment occu¬ 
pied by another, nor occupy one more than five minutes. A 
voter who declares under oath to the presiding officer that he 
cannot read, or is physically unable to see or mark his ballot, 
may be helped to mark it by one or more election officers, who 
shall certify on the outside of the ballot that it was so marked. 

If a voter inadvertently spoils a ballot, he may obtain 
another upon returning the spoiled one and satisfying the officer 
of the fact of the inadvertence, and the ballot returned shall be 
immediately canceled and preserved together with those not 
issued.* 

Fourthly, as to what is done after the polls are closed. 
Before the ballot-boxes are opened, the stubs containing the 
voters’ names and the number of their ballots, and the lists of 
voters, shall be put in sealed packages, not to be opened except 
in case of a contested election or upon an order of court. No 
list or memorandum of voters’ names or ballot numbers, not 
expressly authorized by law, shall be made or kept by any person 
or officer. 

If it be impossible to determine a voter’s choice for any 
office to be filled, his ballot shall not be counted for such office. 
Only ballots provided in accordance with the act shall be 
counted. Ballots not counted shall be marked “ defective,” and 
preserved. 

Lastly, the following offences are made punishable by fine 
or imprisonment, or both ;—The showing of his ballot by a voter, 
except as permitted by the act in the case of illiterate persons 
and others, and with the apparent intention of letting his vote 
be known. False statements by a voter as to inability to mark 
his ballot. Interference, actual or attempted, with any voter 
inside the enclosed space. Attempting to induce any voter to 
show the marks on his ballot. Defacing, destroying, or removing 
any officially posted list of candidates, card of instruction, or 

*It is essential that the spoiled ballot should not be retained by the voter. 
Otherwise, pretending to have marked it wrongly, he could take it out, and have 
it marked outside and given to another, who could substitute it for the one he re¬ 
ceived, and give this up outside in his turn. The extensive use of this dodge for 
destroying the secrecy of the ballot first led, in Australia, to the adoption of this 
rule. 




23 


specimen ballot. Removing or destroying any of the supplies 
or conveniences for marking ballots. Wilfully hindering the 
voting of others. Falsely making or wilfully defacing or 
destroying any certificate of nomination or nomination paper, 
or any part thereof, or letter of withdrawal. Filing any such 
papers or letter, knowing the same or any part thereof to be 
falsely made. Suppressing any such papers or any part thereof, 
after the filing. Forging the official endorsement to a ballot. 
Wilfully defacing or destroying a ballot. Wilfully delaying the 
delivery of ballots. Misfeasance or nonfeasance of any official 
duties imposed by the act. 

Such is in substance the election law proposed for this 
State. How is it to give us the free and equal elections which 
the constitution guarantees ? 

Let us consider first the provisions in regard to nomina¬ 
tions and the providing of ballots. The great objects in view are 
to make independent nominations practicable, and to prevent 
trading. Under our present system, party nominations have a 
wholly undue importance. Where the usual party majority is 
large, nomination is equivalent to election, and the choice of 
public servants is transferred from the voters at large to the 
comparatively small number who attend primaries and compose 
conventions, or rather to that still smaller body who compose 
the “ machine ” and by whom the primaries and conventions are 
controlled. The machine leaders see to it, through their subor¬ 
dinates, that a majority of the primaries in the city, ward, or 
district, as the case may be, send to the conventions followers 
of the machine. In Pennsylvania, the rules governing admis¬ 
sion to primaries are much less strict than in some other States 
(a fact greatly to the credit of the party managers here), but 
even here all contest with the machine is usually regarded as 
hopeless, and the primaries are chiefly attended by public officers 
and employees, employees of members of the machine, and the 
friends of these various classes. Besides, the machine only has 
to control a majority of the primaries, and then, no matter how 
strong its opponents are in the others, its working is undisturbed. 
The machine-made majority of the convention usually makes the 
pre-arranged nominations, or elects the pre-appointed delegates 


24 


to some higher convention, and thus the “ slate ” goes through. 
Factional fights sometimes occur even among strictly party men, 
but the machine is rarely beaten in the end, and the nomina¬ 
tions once made, the weaker faction usually finds it to its advan¬ 
tage to “ wheel into line,” along with the thousands of other 
voters who have taken no part in the contests and often know 
nothing of the candidates, or at most little that is to their credit. 
And yet the voters whose dreaded independence excluded them 
from the primaries, those who were outvoted at the primaries, or 
would have been had they attended, and those whose delegates, 
though elected at the primaries, were beaten in the convention, 
often constitute a majority, and if added to the minority party, 
a very large majority, and ought, under what is supposed to be 
the American practice and by the principle of free elections, to 
rule instead of the machine and its followers. Why, then, do 
they not combine with the other party when they disapprove the 
machine candidates, or some of them ? Sometimes this is done 
to some extent, but generally not, because, first, as they would 
have no voice at the primaries or conventions of the other 
party, its candidates would not be chosen by them, and might 
very likely be as displeasing to them as those of their own party ; 
and, secondly, because if a man believes in his party at all, he 
rarely likes to substitute for any of its candidates those of a party 
with whom he is not in accord. Why then do they not at least 
combine together and nominate one of their own party in 
whom they will have confidence ? Sometimes, as is well known, 
they do, but usually not, because apart from the risk of merely 
giving the victory to the other party, there are two potent con^ 
siderations :—first, the expense, and secondly, that their candi¬ 
dates would not stand on an equality with the regular ticket at 
the polls. 

(i.) The expense. Our laws require ballots to be -used, 
and separate ballots with a proper caption, for State, county, 
judiciary, and other tickets. As the supporters of each candidate 
or set of candidates must print and distribute their own ballots, 
very considerable expense is involved, often much greater for 
each party than the public printing for all parties under the pro¬ 
posed system. Not only ballots and “ stickers ” enough must be 


25 


provided by each party for the use of all who come to the polls, 
but also enough must be sent to the voters’ houses to show them 
that there is a ticket, and if possible to induce them to take one 
with them to the polls. Then the supporters of each ticket 
must man the polls with ticket-peddlers, window-book men, etc., 
usually paid, not only to see that all voters are given a chance 
to vote that ticket or a part of it, but also to note the character 
of each vote as it is cast. At the New York election of Novem¬ 
ber, 1887, for instance, 80,000,000 ballots were printed, but only 
1,200,000, or a little over one in seventy actually used, whereas 
under the proposed law but about four times as many ballots as 
there are names on the assessor’s lists would be printed. The 
printing, folding, addressing, and mailing of the ballots costs the 
three leading party organizations of New York city {i.e, Tam¬ 
many, County Democracy, and Republican), $25,000 a piece for 
each election, exclusive of the pay of ticket-peddlers.^ In Phila¬ 
delphia the party treasuries are not so plethoric. Ballot printing 
costs each party at least $2cco an election, or $4000 a year. 
The folding and addressing are usually done gratuitously, but 
the mailing costs at least $3000 for each election, and the ticket- 
peddlers $4000 more. Certainly each party needs $9,000 at 
every election to enable voters to comply with the law requir¬ 
ing ballots to be used ; and when in a close contest it becomes 
expedient to man the polls more thoroughly or to buy up the 
adversary’s ticket-peddlers and window-book men, the expense 
is proportionately increased. 

Now the supporters of an independent ticket must of course 
have as much of this indispensable machinery as their oppo¬ 
nents have, and $25,000 for New York, or $9000 for Philadelphia, 
or even a less amount for a ward or district contest, is a serious 
drain upon an independent treasury, in view of the other elec¬ 
tioneering expenses, including meetings, distribution of circulars, 
etc., that have to be paid for. The machines have plenty of 
money, as I shall have occasion to show, and this gives them an 
advantage like that of the bank at roulette or any like game. 
They can keep on playing when the independents have to stop. 

*See “ Electoral Reform ” by William M. Ivins, Chamberlain of the City of 
New York. 



26 


Now the working effect of the proposed law would not only 
give equal publicity to the names of all candidates, by the posting 
and publication, which would curtail some items of expense, but 
it would do away with all expense that is now incurred simply 
that a candidate’s supporters may exercise in the manner re¬ 
quired by law their constitutional right of voting. If the law 
requires ballots to be used, the law should supply them. Its 
failure to do so practically imposes a penalty on all who enter 
political life, and thereby transgresses the constitutional require¬ 
ment of free elections. 

(2.) But the expense is not the only factor in deterring 
independent nominations. As most voters belong to ane or 
other of the two great parties, an independent candidate has 
not a fair chance with our present methods of voting. First, 
because it is easier to vote a straight ticket than a mixed one, 
and human nature being what it is, thousands of voters will 
take the easiest way ; and secondly, because our voting not being 
secret, thousands of voters will object to be seen bolting their 
party ticket. As to the first reason; as our voting in this city 
is usually done from a street or alley, outside the window of the 
back room of a tavern, with nothing but a sense of the duties 
of citizenship performed, or of the dollars or drinks to be forth¬ 
coming, to mitigate the discomforts of rain, snow, driving wind, 
or biting frost, the voter, who has to battle with the elements 
as well as with his political foes, may certainly be excused for 
voting “straight,” instead of stopping to erase names, put on 
“stickers,” select tickets, and what not. If, however, he were 
inside a room, in a compartment by himself, and only called 
upon to make a mark against one name in each list, the exertion 
required to select the candidates of one party would be exactly 
the same as to select those of the other, or of an independent 
body of citizens. Again, if he could do this secretly, without 
any fear of being called to account by his friends for “ going 
back on the party,” or by his employer for opposing his fancied 
interests, the influence of the party nomination would not be as 
controlling as it is. 

The consideration of the voter’s convenience may seem tri¬ 
fling, but it is just such trifles that turn the scale in an election; 


27 


and if our methods of election, as established by law, are such 
that one man can receive the votes of his supporters with less 
trouble to them, even to a trifling extent, than another man can, 
then the constitutional guarantee of equal elections is violated 
both as to candidates and as to voters. The constitution knows 
nothing of “straight tickets.” It gives them no privileges. If 
I choose to vote for candidates of different parties, or represent¬ 
ing different bodies of citizens, a “split ticket” as it is called, 
I have a constitutional right to do so with exactly the same ease 
and facility with which my neighbour votes his “straight ticket.” 
By the Australian system, when properly carried out, this right 
is secured ; for, with the name of every candidate presented to 
the voter on the ballot, whatever selection be made, the mode of 
selection, i. e. the marking, is as the constitution intended it 
should be, exactly as easy in one man’s case as in another’s. 

This of itself, as well as the decreased cost of political con¬ 
tests, tends to some extent to do away with the importance of 
a party nomination, and hence of a party machine ; but there 
is another respect in which the operation of the Australian sys¬ 
tem is still more effectual and still more salutary. I refer to its 
complete prevention of trading, and of the control that may 
thereby be gained by party leaders over the candidates that have 
been nominated. 

Trading is the great bane of American elections, a worse 
perversion of the whole spirit and purpose of an election than 
bribery itself. Bribery is where a man for a corrupt considera¬ 
tion, but at least voluntarily, votes a particular ticket. Trading 
not only involves bribery in many cases, but it also takes 
advantage of carelessness, ignorance, drunkenness, or machine 
subordination to turn the current of a party’s strength into 
whatever channels the machine leader may desire. By our pre¬ 
sent system every candidate, though he may have received the 
coveted party nomination, is at the mercy of the machine and 
its henchmen at every polling-place. If for any reason it is 
desired to sacrifice any candidate for the benefit of the rest, a 
bargain is made with the other side, tickets are printed or 
“ bunched ” accordingly, (and our system of separate ballots 
facilitates this “bunching”) and distributed instead of the reg- 


28 


ular party tickets, and are voted by hundreds who do not know 
the difference, and by other hundreds who must vote the ticket 
that the machine puts into their hands. At last November’s elec¬ 
tion for instance, it is not denied that at several voting-places in 
New York city the Tammany and Republican tickets supplied 
to voters were substantially the same, i. e., the Harrison electors, 
Hill for governor, and Grant for mayor, and similar combina¬ 
tions are not absolutely unknown among us. 

The machine’s control of the printing, bunching, and dis¬ 
tributing of ballots gives it a tremendous hold on the candi¬ 
dates, and can be made a great source of revenue. I have said 
that a machine always has money. Its greatest resources are 
usually the assessments levied on office holders, the contribu¬ 
tions of contractors and others who look to the party for their 
livelihood, and also those of men, both in and out of politics, 
who deem the party’s success advantageous to their private busi¬ 
ness ; but these are not all. Since, under our present system, 
both nomination and election are usually within the machine’s 
control, it often happens that its aid can only be secured on pay¬ 
ment of a high price; and if this price be not paid, the machine 
can often make up the loss by selling its support to the other 
side. 

What the sums are that are paid by candidates in the city 
of New York is instructive. Mr. William M. Ivins, Chamber- 
lain of that city,* states that an average year would show 
the following assessments on candidates in that city by their 
party machines, the assessments being entirely distinct from the 
money paid voluntarily by candidates in the course of their 


canvass, independent of, or accessory to, the work of the 
machines. 

Two Aldermanic candidates at ^15 per district for 812 districts, . . . $2'[.,360. 

“ Assembly “ 10 “ « « « ... 16,240. 

“ candidates for Congress or State Senate at ^25 per election district, "40,600. 

Four “ “ Judgeships at ^10,000 each,.40,000. 

Two “ “ Mayor at ^20,000 each.40,000. 

“ “ “ Sheriff, County Clerk, Register, or other county office, 

at ^10,000 each,.20.000. 

“ “ “ Comptroller at ^10,000 each,.20,000. 

“ “ “ District Attorney at ^5,000 each, ..10,000. 

Total,. $ 211 , 200 . 

*“ Electoral Reform,” p. 15. 









29 


Two hundred and eleven thousand dollars extorted from 
candidates at our elections, to be used as the machine leaders 
may see fit! And that on a basis of two candidates only in 
each district, and in an “off-year,” with no President or governor 
to be voted for. What a commentary on American public life! 
The right to receive the suffrages of a so-called free people put 
up at auction, and knocked down to the highest bidder! 

Of course I am speaking of New York. We are apparently 
more virtuous here than they are in New York. At any rate, 
our city is not so large. No one accuses our mayor or judges 
of buying their offices in this way; and yet, only two years ago, 
we read in the papers of a contract alleged to have be,en made 
some years before between a candidate and a machine leader, 
granting a share in the profits of an important office in return 
for nomination and election. 

Certainly our present system provides no practical check 
on such contracts, and our superior virtue may not hold out for¬ 
ever. The character of the New York population may intensify 
the evils of machine rule, but the difference in its results 
between one place and another can only be one of degree. 
Whether the existence of a machine be right or wrong, avoid¬ 
able or inevitable, are questions that I cannot stop to answer 
now; but one thing is certain, that as long as our present con¬ 
stitution lasts, no machine, no matter who compose it, ought to 
be allowed to restrain or control in any way the free exercise of 
the right of the people to nominate and to elect. The law can¬ 
not make candidates equal in all respects. The more able can¬ 
didate ought to have an advantage ; the more popular or the 
wealthier one can hardly help having it; but what the law can 
and ought to do, is to put all candidates on an equality as regards 
such election machinery as the law establishes, and to make the 
use of such machinery free to them all. Now this is exactly 
what the Australian system does. All the candidates’ names 
are brought to the attention of the people at the people’s cost 
only. Each stands on an equal footing, as far as any law can 
affect this, and none can have his name withheld except by his 
own consent. The supporters of each can vote freely, as their 
own wishes may dictate, with no inducement to sell their sup¬ 
port for lucre or to withhold it from fear. 


30 


Let us now consider the distribution of the ballots, and the 
method of secret voting, and we shall find that in these features 
also the Australian system operates to make elections free and 
equal. It makes them equal by giving to all voters, irrespective 
of party, equal facilities for voting. It makes them free by 
securing absolutely the voter’s enjoyment of the right to vote 
as he pleases. 

Of the equality I have already spoken. As to the freedom, 
it is clear that elections cannot be free unless every elector can 
vote without the risk of being called to account for the vote 
which he has cast. To attain this, an absolutely secret ballot is 
indispensable. Undoubtedly our present ballot is intended to 
be secret. The law requires it to be folded so as to conceal its 
contents, and that the election officers be sworn not to disclose 
them. But what is this worth when there is no such thing as 
privacy at the polls, when a voter’s every action is closely 
watched by the window-book men, ticket-peddlers, and hangers- 
on of both parties } If he puts on a “ sticker,” it is seen. If he 
erases a name, it is seen. If he keeps his ballot folded, the 
caption required by law is recognized and noted, the type 
used indicating what candidate or party he has voted for. Some 
little secrecy is gained by making up the ballots at home, but 
even then the distinctive caption tells its tale to some extent, 
and besides, one rarely has all the tickets or stickers he needs 
for a thoroughly independent ballot. Moreover this slight 
measure of privacy is usually a luxury of the upper classes. 
Men of the humbler sort (whether from the circumstances of 
their employment, their connection with the employees of the 
public offices and departments, their desire to share in the loaves 
and fishes, or from association and natural affinity,) are, as a 
general rule, much more closely connected with the political 
machines than are their richer fellow-citizens. In fact, it is on the 
votes of the poorer element that the machines chiefly depend. 
Any attempt at secrecy by such men would at once attract suspi¬ 
cion and investigation. They take their tickets from the party 
ticket-peddlers at the polls, and vote them straight, because they 
do not wish or do not dare to do anything else. It is not too 
much to say that their ballots are in the main no more secret 
than if the law required them to be shown before they were cast. 


31 


I need not dwell on the results of a man’s voting contrary 
to the wishes of his employer or his friends. I do not mean to 
say that all employers stoop to control their workmen’s votes. 
But we know well enough how sometimes a large employer of 
labour becomes a power in local politics, and how the source of 
his power is his ability to know how his men vote. We know, too, 
that the vote of office-holders and public employees (except so far 
as affected by a conscientious administration of the National 
civil-service law) is usually “ solid,” and that this is as likely to 
be for fear of unpleasant consequences as from conviction. In 
short, we know that our ballot is not free, and this because it is 
not secret. 

Archbishop Trench points out in his “Study of Words” 
that language is fossil history; that is to say, that words em¬ 
body historical facts. We have an instance of this in the word 
“ bull-doze.” Unless the practice of influencing a man’s vote by 
some sort of coercion (ridicule, abuse, hints of discharge from 
his employment, threats of bodily injury, or what not,) had be¬ 
come only too well known in this country, we should never have 
had a particular word to express it. So long as this word has 
any meaning for us in regard to elections, our elections are not 
free. Now it is just here that the Australian system protects 
the poor against the rich, the honest against the unscrupulous, 
the weak against the strong. “ By compelling the honest man 
to vote in secrecy, it relieves him not merely from the grosser 
forms of intimidation, but from more subtle and perhaps more 
pernicious coercion of every sort.”* Commands are useless when 
it cannot be known whether or not they have been obeyed, 
Threats are useless when it can never be known whether or not 
the act against which they are directed is done. Force is use¬ 
less when it is impossible to put a particular ballot in a man’s 
hknd and compel him to vote it. 

Another means for protecting* the freedom and equality of 
the ballot is to secure its purity. It should never be forgotten 
that this latter quality is inseparable from the two former. The 
citizen must not only be free to cast his vote, but he must cast 
it freely. A vote that is bought and sold is not a free vote. It 


*Wigmore, p. 32. 



32 


is no vote for a free man to cast. Again, it is not an equal vote. 
Each citizen has an equal right to vote in accordance with his 
convictions, but to cast one vote only for any one office to be 
filled. When it becomes possible for a man to cast not only his 
own vote, but as many others as he can buy up from men of no 
convictions whatever, this equality is destroyed. 

Now the increased purity of the ballot is, perhaps, the most 
obvious of all the results of the Australian system. Its opera¬ 
tion in this respect is the more effective because it is indirect. 
“ Statutes which seek to prevent by imposing a penalty (like our 
bribery laws) are in numerous classes of cases practically of no 
effect; not only because satisfactory evidence of the violation is 
hard, to obtain, but because through public indifference or private 
favour, prosecutions for the offence are rare—perhaps also be¬ 
cause the prosecution of single offences cannot, in the nature of 
the offence, prove any serious check upon its repetition; per¬ 
haps also for other reasons. Whatever the causes, it [has 
become apparent that the best results are to be reached, when 
preventive legislation is planned, by taking one of three courses.: 
1st. By making the detection of the offence absolutely certain; 
2nd. By taking away all interest in its commission, or by making 
it profitable to refrain ; 3rd. By making the offence physically 
impossible.” * The effect of the Australian system on the 
trading-off of candidates is an instance of the third method ; its 
effect upon bribery, of the second. “No man has ever placed 
his money corruptly without satisfying himself that the vote 
was cast according to the agreement, .... that the goods 
were delivered ; and when there is no proof but the word of the 
bribe-taker (who may have received thrice the sum to vote for 
the briber’s opponent), it is idle to place any trust in such a use 

of money.By compelling the dishonest man to 

mark his vote in secrecy, it renders it impossible for him to 
prove his dishonesty, and •thus deprives him of .the market 
for it.”t 

I have referred to the experience of England and Australia 
in proof of this. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, when in this country 


* Wigniore, pp. 29-30. 
f Wigmore, pp. 31-32. 




33 


last year about the fisheries negotiations, testified to the 
same effect. “ In my opinion,” he said, “there is at the present 
moment exceedingly little electoral bribery and corruption in the 
United Kingdom. The elections are singularly pure, and are 
daily, if it were possible, improving in that respect. Corruption 
indeed is almost an impossibility, owing to the fact that the 
briber is absolutely dependent upon the bribe-taker’s observance 
of the motto, ‘ Honour among thieves,’ for the former has no 
means of ascertaining how the latter votes. This is due to the 
secrecy in which ballots are cast; so very different from here, 
where the voter practically casts his vote in public.” When one 
learns that at the very first election in England under the new 
system, election expenditures dropped to but little over one 
quarter of what they had been, one begins to realize the change. 

It is always more pleasant to contemplate others’ faults 
than our own. Hence to see how bribery flourishes under the 
present American system we may perhaps prefer to turn our 
eyes again to New York city. It has long been customary 
there, says a reliable authority,* for bribers “ to require the man 
whose vote has been bought to walk to the polls with the folded 
ballots which have been given to him held erect in the air, 
with the hand about shoulder-high, where they can be seen every 
moment by the watcher until they are deposited in the boxes. 
It is not an unusual thing in many of the worst districts of the 
city to see squads of men, ranging from five to ten in number, 
marching to the polls with their ballots thus held in view.” 
And it may be stated as a general rule that wherever bribery 
prevails, and under whatever device it is carried on, the briber 
or his agent never allows the bribed voter a moment out of his 
sight after he has received his ballot, until he has deposited it. 

Bribery is carried on under many forms, and apart from 
the deterring effect of the Australian system upon it in general, 
there is one form which is absolutely prevented by official 
ballots and secret voting. I mean the employment of ticket- 
peddlers and window-book men. The men at each voting place 
who supply ballots, and those who mark-how each man votes. 


*See The Nation for Nov. 22, 1888. 

L.ofC. 



34 


are almost always paid, and that they and their friends should 
vote for the party that pays them is a part of the bargain per¬ 
formance of which is strictly looked for. 

In Philadelphia, ten to twenty dollars must be spent for 
ticket-peddling at each of our eight hundred odd voting places, 
and some five thousand men are by this means directly paid for 
their votes. This practice may be used on a large scale to cover 
very extensive bribery. A resident of Hartford, Conn., thus 
describes the methods in vogue there. The “ modus opei'andi 
of bribery as employed in the city of Hartford is very simple 

and effective.All our ballots are handed the voter, 

as he approaches the voting-place, by men who are hired by the 
committee of the party .... The law does not set any 
limit on the number of ticket-peddlers that may be employed, and 
so one can often see seven or more men distributing the ballots 
of a certain party. This carelessness about ballot distributors 
gives a chance to get in some fine work as far as bribery is con¬ 
cerned. The method is as follows : A person who desires to 
sell his vote is known to the ward committee, and when he 
reaches the polls he is seen by them, taken to the committee 
room, and is there hired to ‘ peddle ballots ’ for the party. 

. . . He is given two or three ballots, and goes out and 

stands around the polls for perhaps two or three minutes, then 
he goes in and votes, and his business of ‘ peddling tickets ’ is 
over for the day. The ‘ ticket-peddler ’ is watched from the 
time he leaves the committee room until he casts his ballot and 
is seen to vote the ‘ correct ’ ticket. Then if he has not been 
paid for ‘ peddling ballots,’ he re-enters the committee-room and 
receives his pay for the work he has done .... When 
any questions are asked of the bribers regarding the matter, all 
they say is that the men were hired to ‘ peddle ballots,’ and 
were paid for so doing as all the other peddlers were.” * 

In pleasing contrast to all these details of rascality, let me 
read you what is said of the efficacy of the Australian system in 
operation in Louisville as already stated. “ In addition to demon- 

* From “The Methods of Bribery and its Prevention at our National Elec¬ 
tions,” by Frederic J. Stimson, published by the Massachusetts Reform Club, 1889. 




strating its perfect practicability, the election tested the power of 
the law to prevent bribery. It can hardly be possible that there 
is a city in the Union where open corruption has been more 
generally practiced than in Louisville. The city swarms with 
a large floating vote by which every contest can be determined. 
The evil has been universall}^ admitted and deplored, but all 
efforts to effect some lasting change by vigilance committees 
among the citizens, or by prosecution of those notoriously 
guilty has come to nought. We admit the fact of this corrup¬ 
tion with great regret, and we would not desire to be lulled into 
any false security respecting the efficacy of the means just tried 
to stamp it out. But it is an undeniable fact that in the late 
election there was, except in one place [where the officers were 
manifestly dishonest, and the police made no effort to enforce 
the secrecy required by the law,] no corruption successful and 
but little attempted. With this evidence of the successful 
working of the ballot law, the chances are that bribery will be 
greatly lessened .... A man whose conscience permits 
him to sell his vote, will not be restrained by any ‘ compunc¬ 
tious visitings ’ from voting as he really prefers, even after 
having received his hire to do otherwise; nor are election 
agents men whose confidence in human nature will permit 
them to take the risk of buying a support of whose delivery 
they can never have any knowledge.” In proof of this theory, 
it is stated that the only plan as yet suggested to defeat the 
working of the law, is one easily detected and calling for great 
skill in its execution, and which would only be possible where, 
as in Louisville, the ballot has to be put in an envelope. * 

To pass to another point. The right to cast a free and equal 
ballot involves correlative responsibilities, and a further good 
effect of the Australian system is that it tends to impress upon 
each voter a sense of his responsibility, by compelling him to 
make the ultimate selection of candidates by and for himself, 

*1*^0111 “ The New Ballot Law in Operation,” by Abram Flexner, of Louis¬ 
ville, Ky. The scheme proposed is that some early voter deposit an empty 
envelope and retain his ballot, which will be marked outside and given to some 
hired voter, who will place it in his envelope and bring back the ballot given him, 
to be used in like manner. Under our proposed law even such an ingenious trick 
as this could not be carried out. 



36 


without its being easier to vote for one man rather than another. 

1 have already touched on the right of each voter to equal voting 
facilities, and to freedom from all bias due to fear or favour. A 
voter who has these rights owes to the community which grants 
them the duty of not voting blindly. It ought not to be possible 
that any free American citizen should cast his ballot without 
once looking at it, without stopping for a moment to consider 
the relative claims of the candidates upon his support, or even 
to see who they are, and yet we know that thousands, including 
even men of intelligence, habitually vote with little or no reflec¬ 
tion or attention. This evil cannot be wholly cured by any sys¬ 
tem of voting, but the method proposed is at least a help. A 
man must read his ballot and exercise his choice to some extent 
in order to place his marks and vote for any candidate at all. 
Of course no man is compelled to read his ballot and exercise 
his choice. You may remember Punch’s rustic who, when the 
village doctor asks, “ Well Blundy, how did you vote after all 
replies, “Well, sir, I prom’sed the Blews, but the Yallers got 
over my missus, and I says, yes! So when I went to the bewth, 
and they gives me my ballot-paper, ‘ Conscience forever!’ says I 
to myself, goes into the box, shuts my eyes, an’ makes a big 
cross, promisc’ous—and Lord knows how I voted ! ” This may 
do very well to give point to the picture it accompanies, but 
in the first place such exceptional conscientiousness ended in the 
man’s not voting at all, for it was a thousand to one that the 
mark put “ promisc’ous ” on the paper was not counted, because 
wholly unintelligible; and secondly, the tendency of the system 
is all the other way. The mere fact that a choice has to be 
made is a motive for taking some thought in the matter, and the 
opportunity to make a free choice will bring the habit of choos¬ 
ing in its train. The act of voting will become more personal, 
less mechanical, a sense of responsibility will be developed,-and 
each voter will feel that his unit will count for more when it can¬ 
not be buried beneath a hundred or a thousand others, cast 
practically m bloc, at the command of one man or party, whose 
word supersedes the will of their obedient fqllowers. 

There are, of course, some exceptions to a theoretically per¬ 
fect working of the law, but they are in the first place compar- 


0 / 


atively unimportant, and secondly they would exist under any 
system. 

The first is in regard to nominations. If on account of a 
candidate’s death or withdrawal after the ballots are printed, an¬ 
other name is substituted, it would have to be printed on a sepa¬ 
rate “sticker,” and it would require a little more trouble to vote 
for him. So if a nomination be made too late, or for any reason a 
voter desires to vote for a name not on the ticket, he must 
take the trouble to write it (or, presumably, a “sticker” could be 
used) in the blank left for the purpose. But in all these cases 
the candidate’s disadvantage is reduced to a minimum, and in 
point of fact the contingencies would rarely happen. 

A more frequent exception is the case of illiterates, the 
blind, and those physically incapacitated from writing. The 
inconvenience in regard to such cases is more apparent than 
real. Mr. Goadby states that in England “ taking such votes 
requires a few minutes extra, but no difficulties have been sug¬ 
gested. Blind men are as common in some districts as illiter¬ 
ates, and they are passed on to the care of the policeman at the 
door. Instead of their infirmity proving a hindrance to them, 
they are delighted to exercise the franchise. Illiterates are not 
quite so eager to vote, except during municipal contests; and 
when they have children attending board schools, they have been 
known to practice reading and filling up to escape that sense of 
inferiority they might otherwise feel .... Further, where there 
are only two or three names on a ballot-paper, the position of a 
candidate for whom an illiterate wishes to vote can easily be 
made clear to a voter by his friends before he enters the booth.” 

Any possible inconvenience to blind and illiterate voters, 
however, is far less important than the fact that when election 
officers have to assist a voter to mark his ballot, the secrecy and 
security are to some extent impaired. That they are so im¬ 
paired is undeniable, but the risk should not be exaggerated. If 
the officers are reliable, there is no risk; and if the help is given 
by two officers of different parties, it is but small. A blind or 
illiterate voter must be at some one’s mercy, and what the mercy 
of the average party heeler, into whose hands he is likely to fall 
under our present system, is, we know well enough. That any 


3S 


voter should be blind or an illiterate may be his own misfortune 
or fault, but it is no fault of the law, and if the law appoints 
sworn officers, whose duty it is to aid him, and who are punisha¬ 
ble for neglect of that duty, this is as much as any human law 
can do. If a further remedy be needed, the cure for illiteracy, at 
least, is found in our public schools. These exceptions, there¬ 
fore, clearly do not impair the great result that in the four im¬ 
portant points that I have mentioned, in the freedom, equality, 
and consequent purity and individuality of the ballot, the pro¬ 
posed reform, “ by tending to eradicate corruption and by giving 
effect to each man's innermost belief, secures to the Republic 
what at such a juncture is the thing vitally necessary to its 
health—a free and honest expression of the convictions of 
every citizen.’ * 

It remains to notice some objections that have been made 
to the proposed ballot reform. 

(i.) The time required for voting. It is repeatedly stated 
that it would take too much time, that men could combine to 
practically block the polls and keep others from voting towards 
the close of the day, etc. In point of fact, while each man may 
possibly stay a trifle longer at the polls than at present, the ag¬ 
gregate amount of time required is calculated to be just about 
the same under both systems. 

It should not be supposed, from the fact that a man inaj/ 
stay five minutes in a compartment, that it takes at least five 
minutes for every vote to be cast—that not more than twelve 
votes an hour, or one hundred and forty-four during the day, 
could be cast at any one voting-place. There is no change in 
the mode of establishing the right to vote, and the inspector’s 
action in writing the voter’s name on the stub, detaching the 
ballot, folding it, and giving it to him, can hardly take longer 
than to number each ballot and put them all in their separate 
boxes as done at present. Practically the preliminaries are all 
that takes time, for while one voter is marking his ballot, the 
next in the line is going through them, and as there must be one 
compartment for every fifty or fraction of fifty voters, and not 
less than three in any case, some compartment is sure to be 


*Wigmore, p. 32. 



39 


vacant as soon as any man receives his ballot. Suppose each 
man received his ballot in one minute from the time he presented 
himself at a voting place, then with five or more compartments, 
even if every man stayed five minutes in a compartment, a new 
man could come up every minute, or the whole two hundred and 
fifty in four hours and ten minutes, three hundred in five hours, 
etc., which gives plenty of spare time for challenges, swearing 
in names not on the list, etc. Clearly, nothing is to be feared 
on this score. 

(2.) The opposite objection was made by Governor Hill as 
an excuse for his veto last year, viz., that the five minutes allowed 
for the marking do not give the voter time enough. He says: 
“The anxiety, the deliberation, the care, the caution, with which 
the electors at present prepare their ballots, meditating them for 
days, reconsidering and changing them down to the last moment, 
exhibits by experience that the hurry, confusion, and precipi¬ 
tancy, to which this bill compels the voter, is fatal to the free 
and full operation of his own intelligent volition in the direction 
of his vole.” For a strict party man the governor is extraor¬ 
dinarily patient with independents, for they alone would need 
time to reconsider and change their minds. Certainly the fol¬ 
lowers and friends of “Kid” McManus, “Red” Sullivan, “Juggy” 
McCarthy, “ Yaller” Cullen, and other devoted admirers of the 
governor, reach their conclusions much more rapidly.* But, as 
Mr Ivins points out, “ the governor answers his own objec¬ 
tions.” The official publication, before election, of the list of 
candidates and the printing of their names upon one ballot are an 
immense help to the exercise of deliberation, care, and caution. 
“No man will be driven from pillar to post on election day, get¬ 
ting various bunches of tickets out of which to select those he 
desires to vote, and no one will be compelled to spend thou¬ 
sands of dollars in distributing tickets to electors through the 
mails prior to election. This will all- be done by official publica 
tion. What the voter would do in the booth is virtually what 
he now does when he goes to the line. It is assumed that he 
knows for whom he is to vote before he gets there, and if he 

*See the description of their methods in Mr. Ivins’ “ Electoral Reform,” pp. 
25-28. 



40 


has failed to get some of the tickets he desired to vote, he is the 
sufferer. The new law assumes that he must go to the 
booth prepared in the same general way that the present law 
assumes that he must go to the line. There is this, however, in 
favor of the proposed new law over the present law. It supplies 
him in advance with means of knowing who all the candidates 
are, and then puts him in the peculiarly favourable position of 
having the names of all the candidates before him when he comes 
into the booth, so that he may be perfectly sure that he has a 
chance to exercise his choice as between all of the candidates in 
the field.” 

(3.) Another objection, is the length of time before elec¬ 
tion, two weeks, required for the nomination of township and 
other petty officers. The best answer is that the change is of 
great advantage. Though the offices may be petty as compared 
with some others, they are of considerable importance in their 
way, and the nomination of candidates to fill them should never 
be hurried through at the last moment without notice. It is 
only just to the body of voters that they should know before¬ 
hand who solicits their support for any office, even one supposed 
to be of minor importance. 

(4.) Objection has been made to the increased expense to 
the counties. Let us see what this expense will be. I shall 
take first the present cost to Philadelphia county of the two 
elections held each year; there being at present eight hundred 
and three election divisions, in thirty-nine of which the elections 


are held in school houses:— 

Sheriff’s proclamation and posting, . . , . $ 1,000. 

Advertising proclamation, ...... 4,000. 

Pay of Assessors, . . . . . . 36,135. 

Books, blanks, &c., for Assessors, .... 800. 

Copying Assessors’ lists, ...... 2,500. 

Printing “ 8,030. 

Distributing ballot boxes, ...... 200. 

Rent of rooms, ........ 7,640. 

Pay of election officers,. 41,150. 

“ court clerks, &c., for computing returns, . 1,000. 

Books, blanks, printing, Slc., for election officers, . 1,500. 


Total annual cost, ....... $103,955. 





41 


Now the additional annual cost of the reformed system can- 


not be calculated with certainty, but would probably 

be :— 

Printing ballots, ..... 


$5,000 

Posting and publishing candidates’ names. 


4.000. 

Distributing ballots and cards, 


500. 

Increased rent of larger rooms. 


7.640. 

Conveniences for marking. 


1,000. 

Putting up the compartments and rails, . 


1,000. 

Total. 


$19,140. 


I have calculated an additional cost of ^4000 for posting 
and publishing the condidates’ names, but if the present law in 
regard to the sheriff’s proclamation were amended, so as to let 
the county commissioners issue the proclamation, they could 
combine the names of the candidates with it, and thus reduce 
the expense. 

As larger voting places would be needed, I have allowed 
$7640 for additional rent, on the fair supposition that the aver¬ 
age rent would be doubled. In country districts, where large 
rooms are almost always used as it is, there would be no extra 
cost for this item, and the percentage of increase would be less 
than in the cities. I have seen it suggested in the newspapers 
that permanent voting rooms would be necessary. This is not the 
case, as the compartments and rails would be movable, and could 
be stored in small quantities in different parts of the city, 
probably in school-houses, police-stations, and other public 
buildings. They would be a permanent plant, just as ballot- 
boxes are now, and from the estimate of a reliable wood-working 
mill, their total first cost for this county would be about ;^20,ooo. 
New and larger ballot-boxes would probably also be needed, but 
this cost would be much less than to renew our present plant, as 
has to be done from time to time, as but a third of the boxes 
now in use would be required, and none of the cases which are 
used to hold the various boxes for each division. The cards of 
instruction would not vary from one election to another, and 
could be struck off from stereoptype plates at small expense. 

On the whole we may calculate an increased annual cost of 




42 


not over $20,000 (or less than one-fifth of the present cost), for 
the elections of Philadelphia. A city whose real estate alone is 
assessed for taxation at over six hundred and sixty-six millions 
of dollars can surely afford that, and the counties of this pros¬ 
perous commonwealth can certainly bear their proportion also. 
And is not ballot reform worth the expense.^ To take the 
lowest view, are not free, pure, and equal elections cheaper in 
the long run than those we pay for now ? If a reformed system 
of v'oting gives us better candidates and better officers, a more 
intelligent and honest administration of the public business, is 
that not cheaper } If the doing away with ticket-peddlers, window- 
book men, and other irregular accessories of elections curtails 
the political energy of some of our public employees, is that not 
cheaper ? Then, to rise to a higher argument, is it not worth 
the expense to make our elections free and equal, as our consti¬ 
tution declares they shall be.^ Is it not worth it to obtain a 
genuine expression of the will of the people, to make the people’s 
voice heard without unlawful or unwise let or hindrance ? Shall 
we weigh a few thousands of dollars against the exercise of the 
right of freemen } 

Of course even so practical a law as that now proposed 
cannot execute itself. With dishonest and corrupt election 
officers no system of voting can work well, but a system which 
mininizes fraud as regards the casting of votes and tends to re¬ 
strict the possibility of it to the counting is a great advance; and 
besides, when fraud is so restricted, its detection will be much 
easier than it is now. It is true that “ the price of liberty is eternal 
vigilance,” but the difficulty of maintaining this vigilance may be 
greater or less, and we ought not to require more of ourselves 
than humanity is able to accomplish. We realize the value of 
new inventions and improved methods in our private business— 
the stage-coach has given place to the railroad, the sailing ve'^sel 
to the steamship, the hand-loom to the untiring machinery of a 
great factory,—so in regard to elections, viva voce polling gave 
place in this country to The ballot, and now it is time that the 
privately printed ballot should be superseded by the improved 
machinery of the Australian system. If posterity find some- 


43 


thing better still, let posterity adopt it, but let not posterity 
have cause to reproach us with shutting our eyes to all political 
progress and refusing to avail ourselves of new methods whose 
utility has been amply demonstrated. Above all, let us stand by 
our constitution, and suffer no minor considerations to prevent 
the fulfillment of its solemn promise that “elections shall be 
free and equal.” 


( 


.-f; 



i 



) 




'V 


. *.'g-i'-'“'-'tV' - 
fcW'-•■■ * ■ ■ ■(»f''^/is'' ’• 

W>-' ''.- -.'W'^V''/' 5 ' ?'■'■ '# •' '■> ' 

: i:^-,/i!f>'':.f?';' :a*-. . /• -i’a' 



- I 





i^D\A ■■' * '^ «f • 

y *^^.^i'*''''i .«r’■ V’. / V'^.'ii • ' 

V W+ , 5 ; ,. •; 


ff- - '■" • -.V ; • 




r* • 


• I 


^ . «t w' 


> I 






« •Y "ft 


Y -:, ■> - ■ 






J/ 


%.' 


' .'..g 

■■ -'• ' vT.' 



V » 












Y..f' 




. - 4 ?/ k • 












* t • 4 



» . •» 


f- 


• •« 


.■(W 


'^ ' - • * ■ ,. . SJ 


M 


.^- 


' ' »--A 

• .*:r 

"V: >•-' 


' ♦! 


■f/l 


Hlj 








If 


M 


»# vT: 


*‘\ . 




AB’ 



I ■ :Vs' 


i 


'. * • r ^ > 

‘.!* ‘; •■ 'V 






•ji 


■f 1 % *. 4 ^ 

nig;.v ‘/.X 


/j 




\'y. .-'vv 


• * ': 




- • 




asfe 


» . 






U. \ A ■* . 


\ 




V • 


. ♦. 


;6¥ 


M. 


■V ..*Jv£» 




# V 


ir:- 


■ S' 




-* ' **. 




*. X 






-4. 


vM » It 


^ t » 'T X 

' r 


r*': 


’•> •: 


fW 


14 




s** 


5"^ 




V .-..Sw; ■•■*: ■t^.,;^f.>^■t,,., V-^^';^:-:^ 

'•' •''■ ■>-'-- ■‘.'‘A* -'^.’V^''''" T.;, ^ *-'’*-iJH 

_ . V"; . s . » 4 . j>i ' fc •/ , ■ ^in.» *•. 

r^D^aSL ^ . 7 ,^ ■. ‘ 




-^1- 




v-i 




T 


^•■'faiE"-'-.. Jit; 
■-. ■•■-;:■ i-e.'if ■'• i'. 

‘ 7 - • ' . *'■•.• W 


•*v 
















•MM 


■ { 


V. 




'*• W 


< • 


»,. 


., . ,n'. -'*■ ' 


Lv. 


■-Vl'.^ 4 . 










•“J’ 




h"’ ♦ 




* » 


L ♦ • 








I*; 






^>, ' 


■ ^*1- .. 

1 * .\ 




<»♦ ' 




•hW ^ 


An; 


V-k‘. • -. 




tJi 









0 


0 


> 




X 





/ 







4 ' 


I 










% 


r* 


» 




•4 

,n 



., f 


.j 


/ ^ j 

• . V ', 




% 


' 4 



< 


1 


\ 


• 4 


% 


k 



t 












4 


/.J 

i- 




s; 

»« J 

fM 





t 











